Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (603732)	3/15/2011 1:12:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576955

High Gas Prices Spur Transit Ridership BY SUSAN BERLIN, Senior Editor U.S. gasoline prices are shooting up at an unprecedented pace, largely as a result of unrest in the Middle East. Between the end of February and the beginning of March, AAA statistics showed average U.S. gas prices jumping 28 cents a gallon in 10 days. And historically, when gas prices rise, so does public transportation ridership. In its monthly transit savings report for March, APTA reported that public transit riders would save $9,904 annually and $825 per month based on the March 4, 2011 average national gas price ($3.47 per gallon – reported by AAA) and the national unreserved monthly parking rate. This is the highest savings for public transit riders in two years.. While the numbers coming in are based on very recent events, many agencies across the nation are reporting more trips than in the same time period a year earlier. For example, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) in Tampa, FL, announced a 19 percent increase in its bus ridership during February compared with the same month in 2010: 1.1 million rides instead of 958,515. HART Chief Executive Officer David Armijo called the ridership growth “uncharted territory” for the agency. He added: “While public transportation is certainly highlighted during gas spikes and HART expects to continue to attract new riders, our sustained bus ridership increase has been in response to improvements made over the past few years. These include more late-night service, more shelters, and improved frequency of buses.” Metro in Cincinnati noted that it provided about 1.2 million bus rides in February, a 5 percent increase over February 2010. Its ridership numbers in January 2011 not only exceeded the same month a year ago, they topped the agency’s projected ridership for 2011. "We believe Metro’s ridership increase is a response to the high gas prices,” said Terry Garcia Crews, Metro’s chief executive officer. “Metro serves the community by providing a money-saving alternative. As commuters realize how much they can save by choosing public transportation, Metro expects ridership to increase even more.” In Buffalo, NY, the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) credited rising gas prices among other reasons for its ridership increase of nearly 3 percent during the four-month period between October 2010 and January 2011, compared with the same period in the previous year. “Four dollars is sort of the magic number,” said NFTA Interim Director of Surface Transportation Richard McDermott. “When the price of gasoline gets up to $4 per gallon, people are going to look hard at alternative ways to get around the region—and that means transit.” McDermott explained that NFTA simplified its fare structure in September 2010 and “rebalanced” the route map in November, adding frequency on lines with more riders and eliminating trips on less popular routes. A CBS News story on the gas price increases focused on a Los Angeles area commuter who began saving money when she left her car at home and used Los Angeles Metro instead. “Gas prices in California top the nation so it’s not surprising that we’ve seen a spike in Metro ridership,” said Los Angeles Metro Chief Executive Officer Art Leahy. “We’re poised to take advantage of this opportunity to attract new riders, and we’re working on a dozen new transit projects that will create even more options for commuters and others.” Even before the gas price situation became a priority, many U.S. public transit systems reported seeing positive signs as far as their ridership. The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority noted that total rail ridership increased 7 percent in January 2011 over the previous January and the increase on heavy rail alone totaled 11 percent—despite the fact that the 3.6 million rides system-wide during the month were a 4.25 percent decline from last year. HealthLine Bus Rapid Transit continued a trend that began when it entered operation, seeing its ridership grow 7.5 percent. The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority in Oakland, CA, provided 11 percent more rides in January 2011 than in January 2010, and 13.5 percent more in February. Valley Metro Rail in Phoenix reported that its ridership increases of 7.2 percent in January and 4.2 percent in February are part of a continuing trend dating back to the launch of the light rail system in December 2008. newsmanager.commpartners.com

To: TimF who wrote (603732)	3/15/2011 1:13:17 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576955

Trains May Not Be More Energy Efficient Than Cars Opinion by Cato Institute (June 08, 2009) in Society / Environment by Randal O'Toole Which uses less energy and emits less pollution: a train, a bus, or a car? Advocates of rail transportation rely on the public’s willingness to take for granted the assumption that trains — whether light rail, subways, or high-speed intercity rail — are the most energy-efficient and cleanest forms of transportation. But there is plenty of evidence that this is far from true. Rail advocates often reason like this: the average car has 1.1 people in it. Compare the BTUs or carbon emissions per passenger mile with those from a full train, and the train wins hands down. The problem with such hypothetical examples is that the numbers are always wrong. As a recent study from the University of California (Davis) notes, the load factors are critical. The average commuter car has 1.1 people, but even during rush hour most of the vehicles on the road are not transporting commuters. When counting all trips, the average is 1.6, and a little higher (1.7) for light trucks (pick ups, full-sized vans, and SUVs). On the other hand, the trains are rarely full, yet they operate all day long (while your car runs only when it has someone in it who wants to go somewhere). According to the National Transit Database, in 2007 the average American subway car had 25 people in it (against a theoretical capacity of 150); the average light-rail car had 24 people (capacity 170); the average commuter-rail car had 37 people (capacity 165); and the average bus had 11 (capacity 64). In other words, our transit systems operate at about one-sixth of capacity. Even an SUV averaging 1.7 people does better than that. When Amtrak compares its fuel economy with automobiles (see p. 19), it relies on Department of Energy data that presumes 1.6 people per car (see tables 2.13 for cars and 2.14 for Amtrak). But another Department of Energy report points out that cars in intercity travel tend to be more fully loaded — the average turns out to be 2.4 people. “Intercity auto trips tend to [have] higher-than-average vehicle occupancy rates,” says the DOE. “On average, they are as energy-efficient as rail intercity trips.” Moreover, the report adds, “if passenger rail competes for modal share by moving to high speed service, its energy efficiency should be reduced somewhat — making overall energy savings even more problematic.” Projections that high-speed rail will be energy-efficient assume high load factors (in the linked case, 70 percent). But with some of the routes in the Obama high-speed rail plan terminating in such relatively small cities as Eugene, Oregon; Mobile, Alabama; and Portland, Maine, load factors will often be much lower. Even if a particular rail proposal did save a little energy in year-to-year operations, studies show that the energy cost of constructing rail lines dwarfs any annual savings. The environmental impact statement for a Portland, Oregon light-rail line found it would take 171 years of annual energy savings to repay the energy cost of construction (they built it anyway). Public transit buses tend to be some the least energy-efficient vehicles around because agencies tend to buy really big buses (why not? The feds pay for them), and they run around empty much of the time. But private intercity buses are some of the most energy efficient vehicles because the private operators have an incentive to fill them up. A study commissioned by the American Bus Association found that intercity buses use little more than a third as much energy per passenger mile as Amtrak. (The source may seem self-serving, but DOE data estimate intercity buses are even more efficient than that–compare table 2.12 with intercity bus passenger miles in this table). When it comes to energy consumption per passenger mile, the real waste is generated by public transit agencies and Amtrak. Instead of trying to fill seats, they are politically driven to provide service to all taxpayers, regardless of population density or demand. One of Amtrak’s unheralded high-speed (110-mph) rail lines is between Chicago and Detroit, but it carries so few people that Amtrak loses $84 per passenger (compared with an average of $37 for other short-distance corridors). Meanwhile, transit agencies build light-rail lines to wealthy suburbs with three cars in every garage. With capacities of more than 170, the average light-rail car in Baltimore and Denver carries less than 15 people, while San Jose’s carries 16. For that we need to spend $40 million a mile on track and $3 million per railcar (vs. $300,000 for a bus)? If we really wanted to save energy, we would privatize transit, privatize Amtrak, and sell highways to private entrepreneurs who would have an incentive to reduce the congestion that wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year (p. 1). But of course, the real goal of the rail people is not to save energy but to reshape American lifestyles. They just can’t stand to see people enjoying the freedom of being able to go where they want, when they want to get there. opposingviews.com